The lawsuit consolidates several class-action complaints on behalf of investors who lost billions of dollars on Global Crossing stock.

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE, IT'S AMERICA

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

A tale of a single complaint.

A.K.A. they were Consolidated. But not counseled!

Senior executives at Global Crossing began efforts to disguise the company's financial difficulties months earlier than previously disclosed, giving them more time to sell their shares, according to a securities lawsuit filed this week.

The lawsuit, which consolidates several class-action complaints on behalf of investors who lost billions of dollars on Global Crossing stock and bonds, names as defendants more than 20 executives and directors, including Gary Winnick, who resigned as Global Crossing's chairman last month.

The claims go beyond previous disclosures of the frenzied atmosphere at Global Crossing before its financial collapse early last year, and they set the stage for a legal battle expected to take years.

The suit also names as defendants several investment banks -- including Salomon Smith Barney, part of Citigroup -- that raised money for Global Crossing and recommended its securities to their clients.

John C. Coffee Jr., an expert in securities law and a professor at Columbia University Law School, said damages in the case could reach into the billions of dollars, potentially raising the bar for awards in corporate securities fraud complaints.

Defendants disputed the claims yesterday.

Terry Christensen, a lawyer for Mr. Winnick, said,

''>All that has happened is that pursuant to an order of the court, the various allegations in 70 different complaints have been consolidated into a single complaint.''

Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved